Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> Right, well, as noted, it's generally a fairly low priority to get
> packages added to P-a-s -- even though it's an eventual goal, the waste
> just really isn't so much (in the usual case) to warrant a rush job. So
> from that standpoint, as long as there is quite such the backlog on
> P-a-s that there is (from what I can see), it seems like something
> maintainers should also give a pretty low priority to.
Yeah, that makes sense.
I agree with the other message that having something in the BTS for this
is probably a good idea. That way, one knows the message has been
received and is in a queue somewhere and that people will pick it up when
they get a chance, or if it really belongs somewhere else, they can easily
transfer it or close it or what have you.
> Anyway, you could always try throwing this in Adam's direction as well
> now that he's listed as a co-maintainer of the file.
I noticed that just as I was sending the last message and may do that.
> Well, except between the time you wrote this message and the time I'm
> drafting a reply to it, I've filed/upgraded at least three bugs about
> packages wrongly limiting themselves to Architecture: i386; and I'm sure
> there are plenty more out there in the packages I haven't looked at yet.
> Skills do vary among maintainers, and especially among novice
> maintainers there's certainly a tendency to mark packages as
> arch-specific when they shouldn't be. If P-a-s were being updated
> automatically based on whatever the maintainer thinks should be there,
> it would've been substantially harder to find these bugs.
Oh, hm, yeah, good point. I wasn't thinking to base it on the control
file so much as letting the maintainer send a PGP-signed message somewhere
to change it, but either way, that's a concern.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>